Asiatische Studien

Études Asiatiques
LXIV · 1 · 2010
Zeitschrift der Schweizerischen Asiengesellschaft
Revue de la Société Suisse – Asie

Edited by Roland Altenburger and Robert H. Gassmann

Peter Lang
Bern · Berlin · Bruxelles · Frankfurt am Main · New York · Oxford · Wien
 ISSN 0004-4717

© Peter Lang AG, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Bern 2010

Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern
info@peterlang.com, www.peterlang.com, www.peterlang.net
Alle Rechte vorbehalten.
Das Werk einschliesslich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt.
Jede Verwertung ausserhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes
ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt
insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverlmungen und
die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

Printed in Switzerland
 INHALTSVERZEICHNIS – TABLE DES MATIÈRES
CONTENTS

Aufsätze – Articles – Articles

MONIKA ARNEZ / CAHYANINGRUM DEWOJATI ....................................................................... 7

Sexuality, Morality and the Female Role: Observations on
Recent Indonesian Women’s Literature

TANJA CHRISTMANN ............................................................................................................................39

LOHAS: Ein Label für den japanischen Buchmarkt
nach der Jahrtausendwende

MAYA KELTERBORN ............................................................................................................................55

Zum Verhältnis von Gehalt und Gestalt
in klassischen chinesischen Gedichten

PETER-ULRICH MERZ-BENZ ............................................................................................................89

The Chinese Laundryman: A Model for the Social Type of the Sojourner
– and a Living Transcultural Phenomenon

WOLFGANG MICHEL ......................................................................................................................... 101

Johann Caspar Scheuchzer (1702–1729) und
die Herausgabe der History of Japan

TILMANN TRAUSCH ........................................................................................................................... 139

Rewriting Baranī? The description of the Delhi Sultanate in the Riḥla
of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Ibn Djuzayy and the Tārīkh-i Fīrūz Shāhī
of Ḍiyā’ al-Dīn Baranī

RALPH WEBER / GARRETT BARDEN ......................................................................................... 173

Rhetorics of Authority: Leviticus and the Analects Compared

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010
6 INHALTSVERZEICHNIS – TABLE DES MATIÈRES – CONTENTS

Rezensionen – Comptes rendus – Reviews

RAMZI BAALBAKI (ED.) ................................................................................................................... 241

The Early Islamic Grammatical Tradition. (Amidu Olalekan Sanni)

HARRY FALK & WALTER SLAJE (ED.) ..................................................................................... 243

Oskar von Hinüber, Kleine Schriften. (K. R. Norman)

GEORGE SALIBA ................................................................................................................................. 246

Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance.
(Carlo Scardino)

Autoren – Auteurs – Authors ....................................................................................................... 259

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010
 THE CHINESE LAUNDRYMAN: A MODEL
FOR THE SOCIAL TYPE OF THE SOJOURNER –
AND A LIVING TRANSCULTURAL PHENOMENON

Peter-Ulrich Merz-Benz, University of Zurich

Abstract
Paul Chan Pang Siu’s article “The Sojourner”, which appeared in 1952, belongs to the classical
texts in the sociology of migration. Paul Siu, the son of a Chinese laundryman and later student of
sociology at the University of Chicago under Ernest Burgess and Louis Wirth, attempted to
investigate, using scientific means, the reality which determined his father’s life, and over and
above that, the lives of a whole ethnic group. Siu understands the sojourner as a special type of
sociological form of stranger, deliberately setting himself apart from the then famous “marginal
man” of Robert E. Park. Unlike the marginal man, the sojourner is not between the cultures.
Rather, he lives with his countrymen together in a culturally homogenous colony. He is socially
isolated and would like, when he has finished his job and achieved success, to return to his home
country as soon as possible.
Although Siu’s concept of the sojourner originates from 1952, it in fact proves to be very relevant
nowadays in unexpected ways. Siu already thought about migration not from the individual per-
spective, but from that of the social and cultural fields. He described the migration movement as a
movement within the framework of complex network structures which have their own reality, over
and above national and cultural borders. In this way, he places himself right in the center of the
present discussion on migration, which is concerned with the phenomena of globalization, trans-
nationalism, and transmigration. And in addition, there are clear references in his work to the
concepts of transculturality and transdifference. But the most important thing is that Siu constantly
worked with precise sociological terms. From this we can still learn in our present time.

“You promised me to go abroad for only three years […], but you have stayed
there nearly thirty years now.” The person complaining here is the wife of a
Chinese laundryman. The wife lives in China, the man, separated from her, in
the Chinatown of a large American city. The source of this text is a personal
letter in Chinese collected by Paul Chan Pang Siu in 1943 and quoted by him in
his article “The Sojourner”, which was published in 1952.1 The Chinese laundry
is, like the Italian fruit stand, the Greek ice-cream parlor, and the Jewish clothing
store, an invention by which these immigrant groups survived in a highly com-

1 SIU, 1952/53:35.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100

90 PETER-ULRICH MERZ-BENZ

petitive urban community. The Chinese laundry was not transplanted by the
migrants from their homeland; it was, according to Siu, something new, created
in the struggle for existence abroad.2 Primarily though, it is the expression of
what makes people in China go abroad and become sojourners; they are striving
to do a job, to be successful, and fighting for social status at home.3 And, as not
only the anonymous letter-writer discovered, that can take a long time, often
even a whole life.

1. The Sojourner: A Sociological Form of the Stranger

Paul Siu, himself son of a Chinese laundryman and later student of sociology at
the University of Chicago under Ernest Burgess and Louis Wirth, attempted to
investigate with scientific means the social reality which determined the life of
his father, and over and above that, the lives of a whole ethnic group. Siu
understands the sojourner as a deviant type of the sociological form of the
“stranger”.4 The sojourner is, as Siu writes, quoting Georg Simmel, not a wan-
derer; his characterization is not that of the man “who comes today and goes
tomorrow but rather of the man who comes today and stays tomorrow”.5 And
there is something particular about this stay. Psychologically, the sojourner is
unwilling to organize himself as a permanent resident in the country of his
sojourn.6 He keeps up the links with his home country and would like, when he
has done his job, to go back there to his wife and his family.7 His specific goal is

2 SIU, 1952/53:36. Siu also refers in this connection to his unpublished monograph The
Chinese Laundryman: A Study of Social Isolation (SIU, s.a.). This unpublished monograph is
finally integrated in 1953 into Siu’s Ph.D. thesis “The Chinese Laundryman: A Study of
Social Isolation” (SIU, 1953), which appeared later, in 1987, as an extended edition with the
same title (SIU, 1987).
3 SIU, 1952/53:35.
4 SIU, 1952/53:34, 43. To be more precise, I should add that the term sojourner is used here
not in the historical and semantic sense, but rather in a systematic one. The historical context
of Sino-American migration is not the subject of this paper.
5 SIU, 1952/53:35; SIMMEL, 1921:322; SIMMEL, 1908:685; SIMMEL, 1992:764.
6 SIU, 1952/53:34, 39.
7 SIU, 1952/53:39.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100

 THE CHINESE LAUNDRYMAN 91

to do his job in the shortest possible time, 8 for this is, and remains, for him
basically a means to an end. He may not even necessarily like his job.9
The sojourner is, like Robert E. Park’s famous “marginal man”,10 in Sim-
mel’s sense the product of a cultural frontier; he lives in a place “[where] two or
more cultures are in conflict”.11 But, the essential characteristic of the sojourner
is that he clings to the culture of his own ethnic group, in contrast to the bi-
cultural complex of the marginal man. In this sense the sojourner is, as Siu
remarks, following William G. Summer, an “ethnocentrist par excellence”.12 It
should be noted here that Siu originally intended to work with the concept of the
marginal man, however, inspired by Everett Stonequist’s critique of Park,
rejected this plan. Decisive for this was Stonequist’s claim that “some of the
members of the subordinate or minority group are able to live within their own
culture, or at least to live in them sufficiently not to be greatly disturbed by the
culture of the dominant group”.13 With this critique Stonequist gave Siu a new
perspective – that of the mutual independence of the dominant culture and the
minority culture – and thereby helped him out of a difficult situation. For Siu in
fact regarded his efforts to analyse the material he had collected on the Chinese
laundryman, using the concept of the marginal man, as simply failed.14 For Park,
the immigrant is nothing more than a helpless marginal man, one who is caught
between “two worlds in both of which he is more or less a stranger”.15 But the
Chinese laundry worker simply did not fit into this mode. Consequently, Siu had
to find his own way to describe his research object, and the concept of the
sojourner helped him to find this way. Siu owes the term itself to the survey The
Chinese Migrant in Hawaii by Clarence E. Glick from 1938, which differen-
tiates between the sojourner’s attitude and the settler’s.16
But when has the sojourner finished his job, or when is the sojourn ter-
minated? In other words, when does a sojourner stop being a sojourner? The
answer to this question is simultaneously the answer to the question as to which

8 SIU, 1952/53:34, 35, 39, 41.

9 SIU, 1952/53:35.
10 PARK, 1928.
11 SIU, 1952/53:34; here Siu quotes Everett Hughes.
12 SIU, 1952/53:34; SUMNER, 1906:13.
13 STONEQUIST, 1935:2.
14 SIU, 1952/53:43; SIU, 1987:4, 294; TCHEN, 1987:xxxii.
15 SIU, 1952/53:34.
16 GLICK, 1938; following this, Glick continued his studies and brought forth another
monograph, GLICK, 1980.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100

92 PETER-ULRICH MERZ-BENZ

mode of living the sojourner develops. However, and that is the real problem,
this latter question cannot be clearly answered. Siu says that the feature of stay-
ing on indefinitely is indeed interesting,17 which is an enormous understatement
in various senses.
As we have heard, the sojourner wants to do his job and to fight for social
status at home. For him the job is tied up with all sorts of personal needs for new
experience, security, prestige, etc.18 Life becomes more complex, and he soon
finds himself in a dilemma as to whether to stay abroad or to return home.19
What is meant by success or failure? What are the relevant criteria for making a
judgement? When can he say that he has done his job? The only thing that is
certain is that, on the one hand, the sojourner becomes more and more vague and
uncertain about the termination of his sojourn as time goes by. On the other
hand, he makes some adjustments to his new environment and acquires an old-
timer’s attitude,20 and thus, a sojourn of three years extends to thirty years.
This shows that in the characterization of the sojourner social and cultural
aspects as well as psychological ones have to be increasingly taken into con-
sideration. For in the course of his stay, the sojourner “make[s] changes in his
life-organization, so that he is no longer the same person; in other words, he has
developed a mode of living peculiar to his present situation”.21 The sojourner
does not participate in the community life of his adopted land or at least only
when the corresponding activity is directly connected with matters concerning
his homeland’s social welfare, politics, etc. In fact, his activities tend to be
limited to his own interests, that means, his job. And consequently he is usually
only perceived by the public in relation to his job, as “an individual who per-
forms a function rather than a person with a social status”,22 or, yes, as a Chinese
laundryman, whose activities in the community of his adopted land are first and
foremost of the symbiotic kind.
What applies to the sojourner, applies to his countrymen in general. On the
basis of common interests and cultural heritage the sojourner tends to associate
with people of his own ethnic group, and it comes to the formation of a cultural
colony.23 In the case of the biculturally oriented marginal man, that would be

17 SIU, 1952/53:36.
18 SIU, 1952/53:35.
19 SIU, 1952/53:35.
20 SIU, 1952/53:35.
21 SIU, 1952/53:36.
22 SIU, 1952/53:36.
23 SIU, 1952/53:36.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100

 THE CHINESE LAUNDRYMAN 93

impossible. “The formation of the cultural colony”, as Siu writes, “reveals sym-
biotic segregation, on the one hand, and social isolation, on the other hand.
Whether the sojourner lives with or apart from the people of his own ethnic
group, as long as his social life ties up with all sorts of activities in the [ethnic]
colony there is a tendency for forming in-group relationships. The desire to live
together becomes not only social need but also a natural thing.”24 The culturally
homogenous colony is the place to establish or to re-establish some sort of
primary-group relationships in the matrix of homeland culture, and it is therefore
nothing more than the continuous effort to create a home away from home.25 In
this way it is possible to maintain the homeland’s cultural heritage abroad, from
family life to one’s own cuisine.26
However, one thing does not change for the culturally homogenous colony,
and particularly for those who live in it: Inward homogeneity goes hand in hand
with outward social isolation. For the sojourner, the result is a unique dialectic,
which directly determines his existence. The social isolation is responsible for
the social status of the sojourner, or plainly speaking, for the fact that the so-
journer has no social status in the country of his sojourn. This again stands in
complete contrast to the expectations which confront the sojourner in his home
country. Indeed, it is the sentiments and attitudes of the members of his primary
group in the home country that make his trip meaningful. The trip is supposed to
show that he is a person to be admired, to be appreciated, to be proud of, and to
be envied.27 Only very unwillingly, therefore, would the sojourner return without
being successful, without some sort of security and without a sense of accom-
plishment. To be successful means that he must concentrate on, even limit him-
self to, his job, in other words: to an existence as the carrier of a function, with-
out social status. Finally, he finds himself in an anomalous situation with
reference to his homeland and the country of his sojourn.28 His links with the
home country consist of a series of trips involving a constant dialectic movement
between being a stranger and becoming a stranger. For this reason, the sojourner
is also – Siu quotes Simmel further – a “man who comes today and stays to-
morrow, the potential wanderer, so to speak, who, although he has gone no
further, has not quite got over the freedom of coming and going”.29

24 SIU, 1952/53:36.
25 SIU, 1952/53:37.
26 SIU, 1952/53:37.
27 SIU, 1952/53:39; see also 35.
28 SIU, 1952/53:41.
29 SIU, 1952/53:43; SIMMEL, 1921:322; SIMMEL, 1908:685; SIMMEL, 1992:764.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100

94 PETER-ULRICH MERZ-BENZ

2. The Concept of the Sojourner Today:

Transnationalism and Transmigration

It is time here to recall that the year in which the article by Paul Siu was
published was 1952. With the sojourner, Siu coined a new concept of the
“stranger”, apart from the well-known terms of the “trader” from George
Simmel, the “hobo” from Nels Anderson, the “tramp” from Nels Anderson und
Robert E. Park, the “marginal man” from Robert E. Park, as well as the
“stranger” and the “homecomer” from Alfred Schütz.30 And this concept of the
sojourner was afterwards to become a leading term in migration research in the
1960s and 1970s. But how important is this concept today? Is it still relevant?
Now, as is the case with rhetorical questions of this kind, the first answer is
usually negative, followed by the second, truly competent answer resulting in
even greater agreement! Regarding the concept of the sojourner, this point has,
however, not yet been reached. But it can be seen that there is a great deal more
to this concept (i.e. the concept as Siu used it) than has so far been uncovered.
In fact, the time when research on the sojourner (Gastarbeiterforschung)
was identical with the sociology of migration belongs to the past; the sojourner:
that was the central topic of the sociology of migration in the 1970s. One thing
needs to be mentioned here though: If, in retrospect, research on the sojourner is
credited with having created awareness of the problems of assimilation and
integration, even of having introduced them into sociology of migration
debates,31 then it must be emphasized that for Siu assimilation played a central
role in the characterization of the sojourner.32 However, with regard to assimila-
tion or social isolation, Siu draws conclusions that are very different from those
of later research in this field.
The current discussion in the area of migration concerns the phenomena of
globalization, transnationalism, and transmigration. International migrational
processes are no longer regarded as isolated events, but as border-crossing
movements of people in a context and as part of global movements, that is: the
flow of finance, of goods, the dispersion of information technology, of cultural
symbols and patterns of interpretation, etc. 33 Globalization processes run on

30 MERZ-BENZ/WAGNER, 2002; esp. MERZ-BENZ/WAGNER, 2002a:13.

31 PRIES, 2001:55.
32 SIU, 1952/53:53; PARK/BURGESS, 1921:735.
33 SASSEN, 1988; 1998:Section I.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100

 THE CHINESE LAUNDRYMAN 95

different levels and at varying speeds, but are intertwined,34 and the migrational
processes are also contained within these. The decisive factor here is: inter-
national migration no longer appears primarily to be a result of globalization but,
rather, increasingly as one of its motors and forms.35
The terms transnationalism and transmigration describe the consequences
for the reality of the event of migration itself: migration no longer represents a
change between two places (region of origin and sojourn, home country and host
country) with varying frequency. Migration finds expression rather in the con-
struction of social fields and networks over and above the nation-state borders.36
It comes to the formation of pluri-local communities, which are more than the
extension of regional structures or even family structures. In fact, they embody
their own reality and have their own symbolic system and social practices. The
life courses of migrants are genuine elements of these communities, whereby it
is simultaneously clear that migration can, and should, no longer be thought of
from the individual perspective. One of the central prerequisites of “classical”
sojourner (Gastarbeiter) research is therefore no longer valid. One example of
how such transnational communities not only determine the reality of the
migration event, but even that of a person’s identity as a member of an indi-
vidual culture, is the Chinese migration and transnational business activity in the
1990s. A large part of the Chinese migrants work in family businesses or as
small entrepreneurs in the framework of complex network structures which con-
sist of familial or so-called guanxi particularist relations. The latter represent
what one could call a “habitus”, a kind of disposition to loyalty through a com-
mon origin, which determines the behaviour of migrants over and above the
social fields and national borders. 37 The phenomena of transnationalism and
transmigration, associated with the “hypermodernity” of late capitalism, are a
challenge even for conventional, long-standing ideas about Chinese culture and
identity. To be “Chinese”, according to Donald Nonini und Aihwa Ong, is not a
personal characteristic, nor is it a question of taking on specific “Chinese” values
or norms. “‘Chineseness’ [...] instead can be understood only in terms of the
multiplicity of ways in which ‘being Chinese’ is an inscribed relation of persons
and groups to forces and processes associated with global capitalism and its
modernities.” 38 Something special follows from this for the understanding of

34 BÜHL, 2005:esp. 18; BECK, 1997:28.

35 HELD et al., 1999:ch. 6; PARNREITER, 1999.
36 GLICK SCHILLER et al., 1992; BASCH et al., 1997:ch. 2.
37 ONG/NONINI, 1997.
38 NONINI/ONG, 1997:4.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100

96 PETER-ULRICH MERZ-BENZ

culture: culture does not represent an homogenous life form, bound to a geo-
graphical region. It is neither ethnic-based, nor determined by nation-state
borders and their respective limitations. Culture is much more a concept for
special connections and transitions in the framework of globalization processes.

3. The Sojourner as a Living Transcultural Phenomenon

What does this all have to do with Siu? What is the (full) meaning, up to now
unnoticed, of his concept of the sojourner, a meaning that can only be uncovered
by the current discussion on migration?
First, we should mention that Siu also thought about migration from the
social field. He records the typical motives of the migrants, such as having
success, or struggling for social status at home, but he understands the individual
almost without exception as being determined by his job, as the carrier of a
function. The migrant is a person only to the people of his own ethnic group or
to a social circle related to his job. 39 Or, one could say, only beyond his
existence as a migrant is the migrant a person. But the crucial point is that the
function which the migrant fulfils is also embodied by a particular, effectively
social, institution: the Chinese laundry. It is the epitome of the life style of Chi-
nese migrants and it stands for a whole social field. Siu writes: “Chinatown in
Chicago, for instance, originated in 1872 in a lone laundry shop located between
Clark and Madison Streets. Several decades later it grew to be the third largest
Chinese colony in this country.”40
Furthermore it should be noted that although Siu understands migration in
principle as a change between two places (as is the rule in research on the
sojourner) he already describes the migratory movement itself as a movement
within the framework of complex network structures. Of course, he does not, or
only to a small degree, elaborate on these concepts; however, the life stories
which he uses in his article leave no room for doubt in this respect. The
distribution of jobs to migrants in the country of sojourn is dealt with through
family structures, and the same structures come into play when it comes to the
investment of savings or the perception of social duties in the home country.
Without question the list of such examples could be continued.41

39 SIU, 1952/53:36.
40 SIU, 1952/53:37.
41 SIU, 1952/53:40.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100

 THE CHINESE LAUNDRYMAN 97

Now we come to a crucial point: it is well known that the sojourner, like
other types of the “stranger”, is a product of a cultural frontier. He lives in a
culturally homogenous colony, he clings to the culture of his own ethnic group,
and is at the same time isolated from the culture of the country of sojourn.42 This
description is, however, incomplete, one could also say: insufficient, as in fact
we are dealing here with a true paradox: despite isolation, Chinese culture is
nevertheless present in the form of this culturally homogenous colony in the
culture of the adopted country, America. Chinatown in Chicago, to name just
one case, developed in, and with, the city of Chicago as a whole. In this respect,
the symbiotic segregation, which is connected with the creation of culturally
homogenous colonies, is an integrative factor. That Chinese culture maintains its
presence in this way is primarily due to the migrational networks; they bring the
migrants into the cultural colonies in the first place.
This paradoxical fact, finally, relates very well to the phenomenon of
globalization as a current topic in sociology of migration. Again Siu himself per-
formed the preparatory work, through – in diplomatic terms – an overinterpre-
tation of Simmel’s concept of the stranger, for Siu understands the sojourner,
that is, the sojourner as a type of stranger, from the beginning mainly from a
cultural viewpoint. However, in Simmel’s characterization of the stranger, the
term culture is not even mentioned. Responsible for the cultural side of the so-
journer is the influence of Hughes, Park, Burgess, and Sumner. But the scientific
spirit often follows its own ways, and so we do, in fact, see in Siu’s work signs
of a new phenomenon in the guise of a classical conceptualization. He also sets
some very precise accents.
As we now know, Siu’s concept of the sojourner already contains consider-
able meaning which we today understand as migration or transmigration, and
this meaning is additionally linked with the concepts of transculturality and even
transdifference. Transculturality and transdifference are, however, the key terms
in the current discussion about the relationship between culture and globaliza-
tion.43 They describe the reality of culture in two ways. We have already heard
of the first way above: culture does not represent a homogenous life form bound
to a geographical region. It is neither ethno-based, nor determined by nation-
state borders and their respective limitations. Rather, culture is a concept for spe-
cial connections and transitions within the framework of globalization processes.
But there is also a second way: despite the fact that every culture encompasses

42 SIU, 1952/53:38.
43 MERZ-BENZ/WAGNER, 2005; WELSCH, 2005; ALLOLIO-NÄCKE et al., 2005.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100

98 PETER-ULRICH MERZ-BENZ

parts of other cultures, despite all the transitions and connections, the cultural
differences remain. The culturally homogenous colonies of Chinese migrants are
present in the adopted country and bound into social life through symbiotic
segregation; nevertheless, they are and remain isolated. This unchanged presence
of cultural differences in all cultural transitions is called transdifference. In
principle, Siu described this already, and he did it by means of sociological con-
ceptualization. We can learn from this, particularly in our present time.
Let us return to the Chinese laundryman: he wanted to go abroad for three
years; in fact he stayed for thirty years. He kept the links with home alive, but he
adapted his way of life to that of the country of sojourn. He made the transition
to the foreign culture, but the difference remained, and increasingly new diffe-
rences opened up in his relationship with the culture of his homeland, due to the
unusual dialectic of being pulled back and forth. A conflicting, even paradoxical,
reality – but a reality.

References

ALLOLIO-NÄCKE, Lars, Britta KALSCHEUER und Arne MANZESCHKE (Hg.)

2005 Differenzen anders denken. Bausteine zu einer Kulturtheorie der
Transdifferenz. Frankfurt am Main.
BASCH, Linda, Nina GLICK SCHILLER and Christina SZANTON BLANC
1994 Nations Unbound. Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predica-
ments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States. Amsterdam.
BECK, Ulrich
1997 Was ist Globalisierung? Irrtümer des Globalismus – Antworten auf
Globalisierung. Frankfurt am Main.
BÜHL, Walter L.
2005 “Formen des Kulturwandels in der Globalisierung”. In: Peter-Ulrich
Merz-Benz und Gerhard Wagner (Hg.). Kultur in Zeiten der Globali-
sierung. Neue Aspekte einer soziologischen Kategorie. Frankfurt am
Main:15–37.
GLICK, Clarence E.
1938 The Chinese Migrant in Hawaii. Ph.D. Diss., University of Chicago.
1980 Sojourners and Settlers. Chinese Migrants in Hawaii. Honolulu.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100

 THE CHINESE LAUNDRYMAN 99

GLICK SCHILLER, Nina, Linda BASCH and Christina BLANC-SZANTON (ed.)

1992 Towards a Transnational Perspective on Migration: Race, Class,
Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered. New York.
HELD, David, Anthony MCGREW, David GOLDBLATT and Jonathan PERRATON
1999 Global Transformations. Politics, Economics and Culture. Cam-
bridge.
MERZ-BENZ, Peter-Ulrich, und Gerhard WAGNER (Hg.)
2002 Der Fremde als sozialer Typus. Klassische soziologische Texte zu ei-
nem aktuellen Phänomen. Konstanz.
2005 Kultur in Zeiten der Globalisierung. Neue Aspekte einer soziologi-
schen Kategorie. Frankfurt am Main.
MERZ-BENZ, Peter-Ulrich, und Gerhard WAGNER
2002a “Der Fremde als sozialer Typus. Zur Rekonstruktion eines soziolo-
gischen Diskurses”, in: Peter-Ulrich Merz-Benz und Gerhard Wagner
(Hg.), Der Fremde als sozialer Typus. Klassische soziologische Texte
zu einem aktuellen Phänomen. Konstanz:9–37.
NONINI, Donald M., and Aihwa ONG
1997 “Introduction: Chinese Transnationalism as an Alternative Modern-
ity”. In: Aihwa Ong and Donald M. Nonini (ed.). Underground Em-
pires. The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transnationalism.
New York:3–33.
ONG, Aihwa, and Donald M. NONINI (ed.)
1997 Underground Empires. The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese
Transnationalism. New York.
PARK, Robert E.
1928 “Human Migration and the Marginal Man”. In: American Journal of
Sociology 33:881–893.
PARK, Robert E., and Ernest W. BURGESS (ed.)
1921 Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago.
PARNREITER, Christof
1999 “Migration: Symbol, Folge und Triebkraft von globaler Integration.
Erfahrungen aus Zentralamerika”. In: Christof Parnreiter, Andreas
Novy und Karin Fischer (Hg.). Globalisierung und Peripherie. Um-
strukturierung in Lateinamerika, Afrika und Asien. Frankfurt am
Main:129–149.
PRIES, Ludger (Hg.)
2001 Internationale Migration. Bielefeld.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100

100 PETER-ULRICH MERZ-BENZ

SASSEN, Saskia
1988 The Mobility of Labor and Capital. A Study in International Invest-
ment and Labor Flow. Cambridge.
1998 Globalization and Its Discontents. New York.
SIMMEL, Georg
1908 “Exkurs über den Fremden”. In: Georg Simmel. Soziologie. Unter-
suchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Berlin:685–691.
1921 “The Social Significance of the ‘Stranger’”. In: Robert E. Park and
Ernest W. Burgess (ed.). Introduction to the Science of Sociology.
Chicago:322–327.
1992 “Exkurs über den Fremden”. In: Georg Simmel. Soziologie. Unter-
suchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Georg Simmel –
Gesamtausgabe; Bd. 11. Frankfurt am Main:764–771.
SIU, Paul C. P.
s.a. The Chinese Laundryman: A Study of Social Isolation (unpublished
monograph).
1952/53 “The Sojourner”. In: American Journal of Sociology 58:34–44.
1953 The Chinese Laundryman: A Study of Social Isolation. Ph.D. Diss.,
University of Chicago.
1987 The Chinese Laundryman: A Study of Social Isolation. John Kuo Wei
Chen (ed.). New York and London.
STONEQUIST, Everett V.
1935 “The Problem of the Marginal Man”. In: American Journal of Socio-
logy 41:1–12.
SUMNER, William Graham
1906 Folkways. A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Man-
ners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. New York.
TCHEN, John Kuo Wei
1987 “Editor’s Introduction”. In: Paul C. P. Siu. The Chinese Laundryman:
A Study of Social Isolation. John Kuo Wei Chen (ed.). New York and
London:xxiii–xxxix.
WELSCH, Wolfgang
2005 “Transkulturelle Gesellschaften”. In: Peter-Ulrich Merz-Benz und
Gerhard Wagner (Hg.). Kultur in Zeiten der Globalisierung. Neue
Aspekte einer soziologischen Kategorie. Frankfurt am Main:39–67.

AS/EA LXIV•1•2010, S. 89–100